Your Son May Be Teased for Even Small Variations from the Norm

A new article just came out in the New York Times Magazine this week about "boys who want to wear dresses". There is a trend lately in the media to feature stories about families raising what are referred to as “pink boys”—those boys who want to wear long hair, paint their nails, and wear sparkles. I am always fascinated by these stories. Anyone that studies genderstereotypes has an uphill battle getting people to care about stereotypes, so media attention to the topic is always appreciated.

One thing I like about these stories of boys struggling with their predefined gender roles is that they highlight the ways rigid gender norms harm boys. Most conversations about the damage of stereotypes focus on girls and their performance in math and science, or the excessive value placed on attractiveness and sexuality, or the princess culture. These are all very legitimate concerns and worthy of dialogue and social change. However, in American society, girls are given substantially more freedoms than boys. Girls are allowed to be tomboys, and their parents don’t need to send a letter to the child’s teacher warning that their daughter may want to play sports. This year’s Olympics highlighted this freedom by celebrating female athletes who now compete in boxing, archery, and taekwondo. Men are still not allowed to compete in traditionally feminine sports such as Olympic-level rhythmic gymnastics. And if they were, I doubt their stories of pluck and grit would be highlighted by Bob Costas.

More importantly, there are rigid gender norms for boys that extend much deeper than not wearing dresses or painting their nails. Boys are still discouraged from playing with dolls, a type of play that fosters traits such as nurturance, care-giving, and perspective-taking. For parents to buy a baby doll at a toy superstore, they must venture into the pink aisle, something most parents won’t do. And yet, nurturance and perspective-taking are wonderful human traits that should be fostered in all children.

Girls are allowed to show independence, competition, and ambition. But the range of emotions that are acceptable for boys is much more narrow.

In adulthood, women are given more work options. They can be a stay-at-home parent or full-time employee, whereas men who stay at home often need to blame their decision on a slow economy. Women are entering the fields of computer science at much faster rates than men are entering the field of child care. So, although gender discrepancies that harm girls and women are still important and worthy of discussion, it is beneficial to keep in mind how boys are limited by their gender norms as well.

On the flip side, there is some danger in these kinds of stories. Stories about “pink boys” lull parents of more typical children into a false sense of security. This is always someone else’s kid, the NIMBY rule for parents.

By pointing out these extreme examples, these gender fluid boys who wear dresses and sparkle shoes, parents are often unaware of the ways that their own children may be affected by gender norms.

Most of us have children who readily comply with wearing clothes more typical of their gender and we rarely have conversations about which pronoun we should use in describing our kids.

Yet studies show that one-quarter of boys show 10 or more behaviors considered atypical for their gender. Research also shows that children who feel at all atypical for their gender, and this means children who fall far short of being gender-variant, have lower self-esteem, more depressive symptoms, and greater anxiety than more typical children. This can be as mild as the girl who does not feel feminine enough or the boy who is not good at sports. Why the drop in mental health for such mild variations from some norm? Because even mildly atypical children are less popular, less liked, and teased more often by their peers. Parents who are grateful their son doesn’t ask to wear a dress should also recognize that a boy who writes good poetry, or wants to read a book with a girl on the cover, may also be getting teased.

Perhaps at some point in society’s evolution, these discussions about gender atypicality will be moot. If there is substantial variation from the norm, then the norm ceases to exist. However, until that day, while there are still strong preconceived notions of what a boy should be and what a girl should be, it is ultimately beneficial to hear about the exceptions to the rules. It helps us recognize that maybe the rules should be rewritten.

At the age of six I went to first grade. My grandfather bought me a backpack, which for my despair had a superhero on it. It was the kind of backpack boys would wear, not girls! I was really desperate and really thought everybody would make fun of me. It was just wrong. Thing is, after two years of carrying it I had been teased for a number of things, but nobody ever noticed my boy-backpack. I even asked a friend, who said she haven't noticed at all, and we were walking to school together every day.
In my opinion, no matter how much care you can put into making your kid "fit" into the norm, his/her friends might not notice what you think is huge and they will tease him/her anyway, no matter what.

S-I totally agree. We can't protect kids from all teasing (nor, I would argue should we try). I do think, however, if a boy carried a princess backpack to school, he would be teased. I know I personally had a Mr. T lunchbox one year (all I can say is it was the 80s) and I was never teased either for it. But that is part of what I mean by the statement that girls have more freedoms than boys. Boys are usually teased for those kind of norm violations.

This is based on a large survey that asked elementary aged kids about a range of gender typical and atypical behaviors. Some behaviors would be considered more "atypical" than others. They included such things as dressing up as women, imitating girls, experimenting with make-up, to enjoying fairy tale play, playing with girls, or playing with Barbies. About 24 different gender atypical behaviors were included (that is, 24 behaviors that are atypical for boys and another 24 that are atypical for girls). What they found is that a quarter of boys indicated 10 or more of these "atypical" behaviors as happening at least sometimes (although which of those behaviors boys were doing differed based on the boy).

The citation for that specific study is (if you can't find it and want the pdf of the article, just email me):
Sandberg, D. E., Meyer-Bahlburg, H.F., Ehrhardt, A. A., & Yager, T. J. (1993) The prevalence of gender-atypical behavior in elementary school children. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 32 (2): 306-314.

"Girls are allowed to be tomboys, and their parents don’t need to send a letter to the child’s teacher warning that their daughter may want to play sports. This year’s Olympics highlighted this freedom by celebrating female athletes who now compete in boxing, archery, and taekwondo."

I strongly disagree. For one thing, we saw female weightlifters being subject to disparaing comments based on their lack of "femininity". Girls who don't fit the gender norm may have it a little easier than boys, but they face a lot of pressure.

What I want to know is what and who decided for this culture what is normative and atypical behavior? Is it cast in stone? is it truth with a capital T. hardly. It is a collective brainwashing that boys do this, girls do that and never the twain shall, (or even should) meet.

I propose this is a media and advertising concoctment that we all have seemed to buy into.

I for one do not and have not ever believed in boy things or girl things, just likes and dislikes. If it were true that there are boy things and girl things, in activities, behaviors or anything else, then Danica Patrick would not be a race car driver, no girl would be allowed, nor should she want to play baseball, only softball at best for her, and don't even think of her wearing boy clothes. She would be at home, in a dress or skirt, and only be the nurturing family head.

the feminist movement turned that archaic notion on its' collective head by the late 1960's. Somehow though it didn't get through to boys or men, nor even most women who wanted it both ways-they want the freedom to do what they please yet any intrusion on their preconceived world order by the masculine branch is met with derision and scorn as not being manly. What the heck does that mean?

As an Adlerian therapist, one of my questions to patients is what does it mean to you to be a man or woman etc. the answers I get are generally written out of a movie script. that's nonsense too, as that tells me they're on autopilot.

a boy couldn't defend his family with ferocity if he wore a skirt whilst doing that? That would imply that girls who wore skirts couldn't either, obviously the skirt is the common denominator. Or he can't wear nailpolish because he simply likes color, but if he does he's emasculated??? Makes no sense whatsoever.

what is wrong with a boy being sensitive? Is there then nothing wrong for a girl to be aggressive and competitive? that I have to even ask the question is disrespectful to the individual. Boys can be sensitive, they can like color and beauty and wartoys, and dolls and a zillion other things that they like. Girls can be coquettish, and go to war, and run compnies, and nurture little babies as to whatever they like, and they, as well as the boys can dislike ny number of things equally as well. But what does need to be emphasized is that nothing the individual does, because that's who they are, or what they like should be chastised or even applauded based on gender normative stereotype, because the stereotype is misguided at best.

One thing I notice about "gender normativity" is that things framed as "masculine" are viewed as superior to things framed as "feminine". How much is this a chicken-and-egg question?

You raise the point of "substantial variation from the norm". Surely you remember the '70s, where long hair on young guys was actually popular and widespread--when dudes might even risk getting kicked out of their school or home to have it? Somehow that got slowly rolled back, and no one even mentions it as anything but a completely benign happenstance. (I've always held that the people who invented Punk made a major tactical error in making long hair on guys uncool at exactly the point when the Establishment was itself starting to turn the screws on it.)

Why, even skirts are sometimes part of the reaction against the idea that males can be beautiful and feminine. Why? Because THEY ARE NOT TIGHTS. This is how today's incredibly baggy pants and "shorts" are to be properly understood--they are Not Tights, specifically not tights worn by a glam-metal dude on the Sunset Strip in the '80s. Our entire popular culture seems to be all about running away from transcendent beauty. We don't trust it; all that bad '80s music coming from transcendently beautiful people did something to it, it seems. This is especially true with regard to males, because if men are beautiful there will be more gay sex and at all costs we can't have that. But we don't face this attitude head-on, instead resorting to Yes, You Can Look Square And Be Liberal--and we keep wondering why the problem persists.

if males are beautiful then this culture assumes there will be more gay sex? You can be as beautiful as you want, but basically you either like the opposite sex or you like the same sex. I get turned on by redheads. But not male redheads no matter what they wear or do. Just simply not there for me. So if a redhead guy wears guyliner and a skirt, I won't be turned because of that, and if a redhead girl wears pants and runs a company then man that will make me notice. I simply am not getting this culture today. I'll be the first to admit it

I'll offer myself as Exhibit A. I like males and females, but I only like people with long hair. Short hair is prescribed for males, so there you go. I'm exactly the sort of person whose sexuality strictures against long hair on males were meant to restrain, and it's really hard for me to think I'm the only one out here.

Girls who don't don feminine clothing and play with "girl" toys are teased just as much. I was ridiculed immensely throughout my childhood by other kids and my parents. Course my case is a little different as I was born both genders which is not as rare as people think. Try 1 in every 100 people though its considered a deep dark secret in American society these days. Still I had female on my birth certificate, but don't act or for that matter even look like a girl so I was teased horrendously which still affects me today. As an adult I have a masculine face and even when I try to dress like a girl & grow my hair out long to gain acceptance I can't quite pull it off, so I have to say sorry but tomboys are not accepted either. Other women treat me the worst.

If girls are allowed more freedom why then are there so many formerly masculine items being made pink? Things like girls baseball bats and even T-ball batting tees, hunting rifles, handguns, fishing rods and those nasty NFL sports team pink jerseys. What that does is still program people to think that it must be designated what girls and women are allowed to play with or own. As if to say no way a woman should be allowed to have a non-pink rifle because that is a man's rifle. Also notice the pink items such as women's hammers and screw driver sets are made with inferior materials so they are weaker and break easily. Society does not regard masculinity in women any better than it does femininity in men. Society doesn't accept those that stray from what is designated as normal.

It goes back to what I've said before, that it's pretty much marketing that keeps beating this dead horse. They assume and perpetuate that stupid assumption that only girls will fall over themselves to make sure that whatever they buy or use is pink, as if that bestows one more confirmation of femininity. It's nonsense to be sure.

But feminine women who in all respects look like what people expect them to look like, dress like they expect, talk like it, move their body like it, etc have a much easier time if it doing and acting more masculine activities, but turn that around to men and almost universally a judgment of their sexual orientation is right there. Not so with girls. They have to have more confusing signals before that comes into play.